I will presume that readers have some familiarity with the history of the National Alliance scandals from about August 2003 forward. Those who need to have their memories refreshed can read my summary of that history at www.natscam.com

Erich Gliebe, the second Chairman of the National Alliance, got his position by a vote of the original National Alliance Board of Directors. A year later, he would betray those who gave him his job, renege on his promise to step down if they believed him unequal to the position of Chairman, and break laws in order to usurp control of the organization created by Dr. William Pierce. Since then, Erich Gliebe has taken the National Alliance nowhere but down, and along the way has brought scandals, shame, and financial difficulties upon what had been the foremost White nationalist group in America.

Under fire for these and other sins, Gliebe took the desperate step of going to the enemies of White nationalism hoping for a chance to deflect criticism from himself and to provide the Jewish-owned, liberal press with targets for criticism, other than himself. He contacted Nichol Nichols of "Citizens Against Hate" and volunteered answers to questions she raised in connection with widely publicized criticisms of his conduct as Chairman of the National Alliance.

But Gliebe's answers to Nichols' questions were obviously incomplete, largely equivocal, and occasionally they proved to be outright lies. Nichols noticed. So did Gliebe's critics within White nationalism. Following Gliebe's clumsy attempt to garner favor from his ostensible enemies, Nichols pounced on him like a cat upon a mouse...but with claws not fully extended.

I present related comments taken from the VNN Forum and from the website of "Citizens Against Hate."

Fred Streed wrote:

Interesting stuff! I really enjoyed the bit where Gliebe lied that he had put $100,000 of his personal money into the NA over the years, and had invested $20,000 of his own money in Resistance Records. Both are lies. Gliebe can't even manage his finances from one paycheck to the next, where in the hell would he come up with that kind of money? I suppose he is trying to create the impression in people's minds that he has some kind of legitimacy as the "owner" of the NA since he invested so much into it.

After Gleebo was appointed chairman he used to blow through NAHQ a couple times a month, usually just stopping long enough to snoop and spy a little, then make a late night visit to the warehouse to replenish his supply of "trading stock". It got to be a regular habit with him to bum me for a C note for "gas and burger money" before he left. I don't know how many others he was tapping for pocket change. After I started writing the paychecks Gliebe would always need his check early. On one occasion he hit me up early for his check because he said he had a house payment coming due and needed the money for that. A few days later I found out he had also conned a financial supporter into "donating" the money for the payment. Then I heard later that there was a member in Cleveland who had made the payment for him. Well, I guess when you have as many responsibilities as the Great Gliebe you get kind of absent minded about such trivial things as money, especially other people's money.

I can vouch for part of the latter part. I was one of the several people that was contacted and was told that he "needed money for his house payment". Not knowing what the score was, I wired $700 into his account.

When I questioned Gliebe about the claims made by Abbott, he responded telling me that the information Abbott was using was over a year old. He closed by saying that Abbott's real name is David Wayne Simms - not exactly a sensational revelation since it is pretty much common knowledge. However, this is the second time that Gliebe revealed Abbott's true identity to me so I guess, to him, it was important that [his] name be out there.

In the latest outpouring Gliebe seeks to expose Jerry Abbott. I guess Gliebe figures that mentioning Jerry Abbott’s real name is somehow a key peg in his defense.

That's not quite right. I've criticized Erich, and I accuse him of crimes. Therefore, Gliebe seeks to inflict retaliatory damage on me. This is the most he can do: seek to "embarrass" me. But I'm not embarrassed.

I wish they would spell my name right: David Wayne Sims. My family name has only one M. I wasn't always a racist, but I am a racist now. I've seen liberalism for the stubborn ignorance that it is, and I've been honest enough to correct myself to an accordance with examined facts. I understand how liberalism is inculcated in uncritical young minds and how this indoctrination is maintained by the mass media.

At age 35, I was late in waking up, but better late than never. I continue to write as Jerry Abbott because people know me by that name, and I don't want to burden my friends and my fans with having to recognize me by another name.

Another racist entity who is on Gliebe's tail is David Wayne Simms (a.ka. Jerry Abbott), and he is cutting the Aryan Barbarian absolutely no slack. Simms, at one time, was Dr. William Pierce's editor and he has some very pointed ideas on what has been done to the National Alliance as well as what needs to be done to "fix" it. We really love bursting the bubbles of the racist right so we just have to tell him that the NA is beyond even his help.

It's Sims, with one M. And Ms. Nichols misrepresented my "very pointed ideas."

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott, late 2003.

If it were not for this name-brand allegience to a popular chief, which arises from the very same sort of authoritarianism that in the larger political arena produces Jew-shy conservatives, it would be easy for most NA members to see the imperative need either for Erich's immediate resignation or for a rapid reorganization of the membership. The more quickly that reorganization is accomplished, the larger will be the new White nationalist group that can emerge from it. But authoritarianism is a fact, and the reorganization probably won't take place fast enough for anything like a national-level policy center to exist. So the prediction of the editorial writer (see part 3), that the NA will splinter down to the Local Unit level, with no governing cell that they all recognize, may come true...

There is only one supreme loyalty for us: the race. Once, the NA was its fairest champion, and it was proper to tender it a derivative loyalty. Now materialism and egoism have crept in and, for all the high-sounding talk (parrotted from Dr. Pierce's "Our Cause" speech), the motives of the organization's leaders have not been kept pure. Remember that, and don't let the money-motivated hangers-on fool you. Our race is our Deity; the National Alliance was its priest. A priest can be replaced.

Obviously, I knew from the beginning that the resuscitation of the National Alliance as a national organization depended on swiftly made decisions by local unit coordinators to divorce themselves from Erich Gliebe's authority and reorganize under new national leadership. More on that point, I wrote:

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott, late 2003.

For these reasons, I call upon the NA Local Unit Coordinators who presently are backing Erich to oppose him instead. Further, I call on the rank-and-file membership to realize the importance of what I've said on this page and likewise oppose Erich's Chairmanship. While it does set a bad precedent to remove a Chairman, it sets a worse example to tolerate incompetence or corruption in a Chairman. If we can't remove a bad Chairman, then we have no moral position to criticize the U.S. Government for not removing, for example, Bill Clinton.

I wrote that over a year ago. Back then, it was still possible to save the NA as a national racial organization. It no longer is. I understand this. Nicole Nichols has burst no "bubble" of mine.

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott, late 2003.

Where Erich isn't exactly lying, he's telling only that half the story which makes him look good. The National Alliance isn't what it was, and it never will be again. Erich Gliebe wrecked a substantial part of the life work of Dr. William Pierce, and he wrecked it with his egoism and materialism. He will probably go on wrecking, while denying that wrecking is what he is doing, until finally there's nothing left.

Which is exactly what is happening.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

In all honesty, I was surprised that it took them as long as it did to determine that many of the questions were left unanswered and that many answered questions were only partial responses. But…at last a couple of the more astute people honed in and saw the forest in spite of the trees.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

That's what some call a "left handed insult." Nichols is trying to insinuate that racists lack in perception or in intelligence. I saw that Gliebe's answers were deceptive/incomplete as I first read them, which was probably several days after they became available through a link posted on VNN. I don't read VNN every day. In fact, I mentioned that there were important questions that Nichols could have asked Gliebe, but did not, and I wondered why not.

Such as: Did you, Erich, break the law in regard to deceiving the Virginia State Corporation Commission with directorship changes that were illegally made?

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Before there is any speculation about any altruistic or benevolent feelings that I might have for the National Alliance, let me put that to rest. For decades, the National Alliance has been considered the foremost hate group in America. Watching its' demise is one of the closest things to a dream come true that this lady can ever imagine. Watching the membership pull back in horror at the actions of the leadership and watching former members and supporters go for the jugular of the organization gives me a real rush. That being said, I can only hope that now they continue on their present course of self-destruction.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

The NA became mortally wounded when Erich Gliebe usurped power from the original Board of Directors. That some racists hasten that demise does not mean that we hate what the National Alliance, under Dr. Pierce, stood for. Indeed no. Rather, the NA had abandoned Dr. Pierce's ideology and strategy, and it began acting contrary to the founder's intentions. We can best serve Dr. Pierce's mission by plowing this corrupt organization under and replanting the soil with new organizational seeds.

Liberals frequently do not think. They applaud the NA's demise for the wish gratification it gives them. They've hated the "National Alliance" by reflex, but that name isn't what liberals hate by reason of philosophy.

Reasoned liberalism hates the way in which nature operates: differentiation, first racial, then speciation, the evolved divisions at the levels of genus, family, order, etc., and by natural selection on all levels. Since natural selection often involves violence and death, liberals regard it as impermissible. And because racial differences give natural selection something to work on, they declare the recognition of those differences impermissible.

The present NA is run incompetently by an egotistical man. When it is gone, it will be replaced by something the liberals will discover they like much less.

Reading further into Nicole Nichols' page, I've begun to notice characteristic leftist tricks of misrepresentation.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Claiming that Gliebe is guilty of "illegally dissolving the Board and appropriating NA assets," the anti-Gliebe bunch are still amassing on the VNN message board and calling for legal action. Now, we all know that the NA has long claimed to be "non-violent" and to work within the confines of the law. We also know how absolutely ridiculous that claim is.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

The National Alliance, under Dr. Pierce, did not renounce violence in principle. It was prohibited as a matter of policy, simply because using violence would have given the federal government an excuse to shut down our organization with the RICO laws, which would have been turned against us however immune certain Jewish groups (such as the ADL) might be.

You might recall how the police in San Francisco and Los Angeles, back in 1991, raided the ADL offices and found classified documents? The ADL has been in court much over that matter, although the media have generally kept it hushed up. But the National Alliance wouldn't need to do anything so egregious as stealing classified intelligence to incur a military attack from the federal government. Any little bit of evident corruption would have sufficed, once upon a time.

So, by policy, not by principle, the National Alliance essentially refrained from organized violent operations. If the NA had been trying to be violent, the government would have had much more to worry about than a few members misusing firearms.

In Dr. Pierce's mind, the mission of the National Alliance "for the foreseeable future" was to build alternative media - including newsletters, magazines, books, radio, television, and movies - able to compete at least marginally with the media owned by the Jews. We might not ever have built a media empire equal to theirs, but we hoped eventually to have enough to give Americans, and maybe Europeans, an alternative source of news and entertainment that would be free of the limits on permissible opinion and ideology that the Jews place on their own offerings. For those Americans whose minds have been numbed into cattlehood over the years, here would have been a chance for them to get the blood flowing again to their brains. TV news would no longer be controlled and superficial; TV sit-coms would no longer be vapid in content.

Anyway, that's what the National Alliance was doing "for the foreseeable future." And that's why the Jewish organizations hated us. They didn't want a White-owned media aware of its Jewish enemy, whose owners would never sell out, whose content could never be brought to any sort of compromise. The Jewish opposition to the NA was mainly a matter of denying propaganda reach to an ideological competitor.

The story of Timothy McVeigh is often abused (by the ADL, whom others uncritically parrot) as an example of National Alliance influence. The Jewish "theory" goes that McVeigh was inspired to bomb a federal building because he read a book in which the FBI building was bombed during the course of a racial civil war. But how many stories of war fiction portray buildings getting blown up? Many, I expect. What made the ADL pick out The Turner Diaries from them all? Politics, I expect.

McVeigh's real motivation for his OKC bombing was being a witness to the US government's attack on a Christian group near Waco, Texas. He decided that it was time the government was taught a lesson, that Americans would, at least occasionally, fight back against government oppression. At his trial, McVeigh said that such was his reason.

But McVeigh had nothing whatever to do with the National Alliance. The members of the National Alliance, if you had polled them, would probably have expressed much approval for McVeigh's goals, but would have criticized his tactics. He didn't research his target sufficiently, and when he struck he killed too many innocents, which caused his deed to backfire politically, rather than having the propaganda effect that (I think) he intended.

Ms. Nichols' efforts to portray the NA as a violent group are dishonest.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Giving credence to our "knowledge" is a conversation taking place in regard to this frivolous thought of a law suit. It seems that they have determined that the person having the most egregious claims against Gliebe is one Kitti Molz, a one time Board member who was canned and threatened by Gliebe. It should be noted that Gliebe, in fact, dismissed the entire Board of Directors after Pierce's death when it became evident that they weren't going to go along with his program.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

Erich must be having some influence on Nicole, if she thus implies that Erich had any authority to "can" Kitti Molz. Canned means "fired." But you can't legally fire a co-director as you could fire a corporate officer. It doesn't work that way.

The law specifies the manner by which directors may be removed, and by removing Kitti differently, he broke the law; he did what he had no right to do; he exceeded his authority and became a rogue Chairman; he (or those on his side) resorted to rough tactics to convince his victims that it might be unhealthy for them to seek legal redress.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Simms makes the following observation and speculations in regard to Kitti Molz and the discussed law suit:

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott (on VNN):

Throughout subsequent developments, the person with the greatest standing to sue Erich Gliebe for his breeches of law and other people's rights is Kitti Molz. Why she has not done so, I don't know for certain. My guess is that she is afraid to confront Gliebe in court because she has been intimidated (as with the loss of her job or with physical harm) by persons friendly to Gliebe.

Physical harm? Intimidation? Is this the same NA that prides itself on being a "non-violent" organization? Well, just how serious is this fear of reprisal?

Jerry Abbott wrote:

Here is the crux of the misrepresentation. These threats and this intimidation came from the faction of Erich Gliebe. When the National Alliance was being run by Dr. William Pierce, there was no such crass behavior. Or, at least, the Chairman perpetrated none and tolerated none from members.

(Actually, I do know of an episode of crass behavior by a highly placed NA staffer. Dr. Pierce fired him upon discovery. That led, indirectly, to my buying this house, but let's not wander off topic.)

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

One member issues the following response to the claim that there is grounds for suit and that Molz might be in need of protection:

Originally Posted by Librarian (on VNN):

So, the Gliebe gang can indeed be kicked out.
Where are the men to give Kitti Molz the back-up that she needs? Funding and armed 24/7 protection cannot be too difficult, surely?
I have no doubt that a solid, well co-ordinated legal attack on the Gliebe gang would be successful.
The main thing would be to ensure that Gliebe didn't sell the real estate and run. The right legal safeguards would have to be in place.

That might not be the "main thing," however. Simms is quick to answer our questions about the seriousness of his charges in his response to this last post:

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott (on VNN):

Actually, that might be difficult.
Why don't you just drop everything you're doing, quit your job, abandon all your other relationships, and go live with Kitti Molz for two or three years to protect her from any hit men that "the other side" might send after her? Obviously, you (1) don't have the time and (2) don't have professional experience as a bodyguard.

Okay…now we are talking "hit men."

Jerry Abbott wrote:

We're also still talking about Erich Gliebe's faction, not about the National Alliance as it was in its Pierce days, nor about White nationalism in general. And the embarrassment here is that White nationalists must worry that a particular faction of ostensible racialists would employ hit men against racial comrades to achieve purely political aims resulting from purely economic motives.

Also, we don't know that Gliebe would do this. But we aren't confident that he would not. After all, he's in control of the National Alliance now because his co-directors on the NA Board assumed that Gliebe wouldn't break the law as he broke it to usurp corporate authority from them.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

In all honesty, it is apparent to me that nothing is sacred within the movement of the racist right. And for all of their pontifications about "race" and "honor," there is absolutely no allegiance to either.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

There are honorable people in White nationalism. But we doubt that Gliebe is one of them. You draw a more general conclusion than you are entitled to draw. You must first sample White nationalists more generally, over a considerable expanse of time, as we have done for, say, Blacks in regard to their criminal tendencies. When you have met the standard we hold ourselves to, then you may speak of our honor with more authority.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Simms goes on to explain why he wouldn't provide protection for Molz:

Originally Posted by Jerry Abbott (on VNN):

"My excuse is that I'd probably return from this extended assignment to find my animals dead, my property stolen, and my house burned down."

Few of us in mainstream America belong to organizations that would even entertain such thoughts against disgruntled members. Most of us are proud of our affiliations and continue to support the same without ever a thought of vindictiveness, vandalism, or violence. Additionally, if ever there was a hint of any of these things we would rapidly realize that the organization and its' leaders are less than desirable. Not the National Alliance and its' members, however. They are accustomed to such happenings - it appears that it is just another way of life.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

Such rubbish. Mainstream Americans do belong to an organization that oppresses, even kills, disgruntled members. They support it even though it commits violence, and vandalism, and murder, upon innocent people. They support it even when they know it has lied to them. The organization they belong to is the United States, with the U.S. government having a position roughly analogous to that which Erich Gliebe has over the National Alliance.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

When questioned about his affiliation with "Unholy Records," Gliebe offered no comment. As Panzerfaust has dealt Resistance Records a severe blow, one must wonder about the viability of the cash cow that kept Pierce afloat and catapulted the National Alliance into prominence.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

Resistance Records wasn't a cash cow. It was a liability^* that Dr. Pierce assumed in the hopes that it would one day become a cash cow. It was subsidized with money earned by the National Alliance's more profitable business, National Vanguard Books. Dr. Pierce gave Panzerfaust an unintended boost when he fired Byron Calvert, probably at the request or recommendation of Erich Gliebe. Byron had strongly criticized Gliebe for unethical behavior in connection with the misappropriation of stock intended for sale.

^*Perhaps I should have said "longterm investment," like stocks or gold bullion that you buy over spec value in the hopes that your purchase will eventually appreciate.

Nicole Nichols wrote (Citizens Against Hate website):

Executive Committee member, Robert Pate, is a "researcher" for National Vanguard. Pate's claim to fame has been his research article on the Anthrax murders where he attempts to put the blame - you guessed it - squarely on the Jews. There seems to be no consensus of opinion on Pate as he appears to be a pretty low-key member.

Jerry Abbott wrote:

He could be right. Dr. Pierce once mentioned that he had reason for thinking the FBI knew who the Anthrax mailers were, but for some reason had chosen to stop them with a warning, rather than arrest them for terrorism and murder.

It suggests to anyone sensible that the person or group responsible for the Anthrax mailings was powerful enough to retaliate on whoever tried to crack down on them. And the only group powerful enough to do that to the US government is organized Jewry, through the media primarily, through high finance secondarily, and through Mossad assassins (Israel has threatened to use its hit-men in other countries) tertiarily.